From: Alexander Basov <coopht@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Fix PR43404, PR48470, PR64744 ICE on naked functions
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 07:06:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHpy5QrmaHykimU8VL5WWe96zfH51FFok-RN5ew_JkJVTC98bw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <558C4CDB.9030609@redhat.com>
2015-06-25 21:47 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>:
> On 06/03/2015 02:15 PM, Alexander Basov wrote:
>>
>> Hello Jeff,
>> please find updated patch attached
>>
>>>> diff --git a/gcc/cfgexpand.c b/gcc/cfgexpand.c
>>>> index b190f91..c6db8a9 100644
>>>> --- a/gcc/cfgexpand.c
>>>> +++ b/gcc/cfgexpand.c
>>>> @@ -1382,7 +1382,15 @@ expand_one_var (tree var, bool toplevel, bool
>>>> really_expand)
>>>> else
>>>> {
>>>> if (really_expand)
>>>> - expand_one_stack_var (origvar);
>>>> + {
>>>> + if (!targetm.calls.allocate_stack_slots_for_args ())
>>>> + error ("cannot allocate stack for variable %q+D, naked
>>>> function.",
>>>> + var);
>>>> +
>>>> + expand_one_stack_var (origvar);
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> So how do you know ORIGVAR is an argument here before issuing the
>>> error? ie, shouldn't you verify that the underlying object is a
>>> PARM_DECL? If there's some way we already know we're dealing with a
>>> PARM_DECL, then just say so.
>>
>> In case of naked function stack should not be used not only for function
>> args, but also for any local variables.
>> So, i think we don't need to check if underlying object is a PARM_DECL.
>
> Then that would indicate that we're using the wrong test
> (allocate_stack_slot_for_args). That hook is for whether or not arguments
> should have stack slots allocated. Yet you're issuing an error for more
> than just PARM_DECLs.
>
> Shouldn't you instead be checking if the current function is a naked
> function or not by checking the attributes of the current function?
>
> Jeff
What allocate_stack_slots_for_args does, it only checks if current
function is naked or not.
May be it will be better to remove allocate_stack_slots_for_args and
replace if with explicit checking of naked attribute?
--
Alexander
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-26 6:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-01 10:13 Alexander Basov
2015-06-02 21:22 ` Jeff Law
2015-06-03 20:17 ` Alexander Basov
2015-06-25 18:52 ` Jeff Law
2015-06-26 7:06 ` Alexander Basov [this message]
2015-06-29 13:41 ` Alexander Basov
2015-07-12 19:02 ` Alexander Basov
2015-08-03 19:35 ` Jeff Law
2015-07-24 22:24 ` Jeff Law
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAHpy5QrmaHykimU8VL5WWe96zfH51FFok-RN5ew_JkJVTC98bw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=coopht@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=law@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).